Scotland Airport: Second verse same as the first

Yesterday's thwarted plot should have raised a serious alarm. Today's attack is being linked to the one s from London so say authorities, according to Allah. From The Blotter

:

U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of a possible terror attack in Glasgow against "airport infrastructure or aircraft," a senior US law enforcement officials tells the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The intelligence reports also warned that airports and aircraft in the Czech Republic could be the targets of al Qaeda-connected terrorists.

The warnings were kept secret for operational reasons, according to officials. In public, the White House and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff have continued to maintain they know of no specific or credible threats involving the United States, even though the intelligence reports specify US aircraft as possible targets.

A US official told ABCNews.com that the intelligence reports led to the assignment of Federal Air Marshals to flights into and out of both Glasgow and Prague.

Air marshals had been added to flights into and out of Germany late last month, based on similar warnings.

As for what happened, the latest update comes from the AP's "My Way"

:

A Jeep Cherokee trailing a cascade of flames rammed into Glasgow airport on Saturday, shattering glass doors just yards from passengers at the check-in counters. Police said they believed the attack was linked to two car bombs found in London the day before.

Britain raised its terror alert to "critical" - the highest possible level - and the Bush administration announced plans to increase security at airports and on mass transit.

One of the men in the car was in critical condition at a hospital with severe burns, while the other was in police custody, said Scottish Police Chief Constable Willie Rae. He said a "suspect device" was found on the man at the hospital and it was taken to a safe location where it was being investigated.

Rae would not say whether the device was a suicide belt. British security officials said evidence pointed toward the Glasgow attack being a suicide mission.

I can confirm that we believe the incident at Glasgow airport is linked to the events in London yesterday," Rae said. "There are clearly similarities and we can confirm that this is being treated as a terrorist incident."
Police foiled the plot Friday after two cars were found in central London packed with explosives - one outside a nightclub near Piccadilly Circus and another parked nearby.
A British government security official said the methods used in the airport attack and Friday's thwarted plots were similar, with all three vehicles carrying large quantities of flammable liquid.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.
Police and MI5 had no specific intelligence warning of a plan to attack Scotland, but they have monitored a host of suspected terrorists and plots there, he said. It was not yet clear whether there was an international element to the planning or funding of the attacks, the official said.

The new terror threat presents Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a Scot who took office on Wednesday, with an enormous challenge and comes at a time of already heightened vigilance one week before the anniversary of the July 7 London transit attacks, which killed 52 people.

"I know that the British people will stand together, united, resolute and strong," Brown said Saturday in a televised statement.

President Bush was being kept informed of the situation, the White House said. "We're in contact with British authorities on the matter," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, in Washington.

The green Jeep barreled toward Glasgow's main airport terminal shortly after 3 p.m. Leeson said bollards - security posts outside the entrance - stopped the driver from driving into the bustling terminal, but the nose of the vehicle smashed the glass doors.

"If he'd got through, he'd have killed hundreds, obviously," he said.

Folks, I said it last night, and I'll say it tonight. These are sick little animals, and these two acts of terrorism in two days should serve as a wake-up call to the Left. We can't just pack up and come home because they will follow us. Remember, Britain began a drawdown of troops just a couple months ago. This is the thanks they get for pulling a few of their soldiers out of the Iraqi theater.

Given the lack of sophistication of these attacks, it's clear these guys aren't from the recent graduating class from Jihadi High (as I speculated last night.) This was amateurish, and again the bomb didn't go off. AQ likes successes, and their people do know how to make and set bombs. They're proving this in Iraq. So either these guys were nutters inspired by some cyber-jihadi websites, or these were homegrown, sympathetic jihadis that just didn't like the UK, and they were doing their part in the global struggle that Islamofascists carry out daily. Either way, Britain isn't likely to let her guard down anytime soon.

So much for that vacation weas thinking about abroad.

Publius II

London bomb plot update

Our apologies to readers for not jumping on this story today. We had a little housekeeping left to do on immigration, and a column to write. So while the e-mails roundly and rightly handed out the lashes for not being there, the apology has been made, and we will commence with an update on the newest information released. For any older news, or to back check any of this story, head on over to Hot Air, and Allah has the rundown from the morning's news. He also has an update post right here which is where the following informatiuon is coming from.

First off, the second car wasn't found in Park Lane. It was found in Trafalgar Square, and was towed because it was parked illegally. Over at ABC's Blotter, there's a lead on a suspect:

British police have a "crystal clear" picture of the man who drove the bomb-rigged silver Mercedes outside a London nightclub, and officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com he bears "a close resemblance" to a man arrested by police in connection with another bomb plot but released for lack of evidence.

Officials say the suspect had been taken into custody in connection with the case of al Qaeda operative Dhiren Barot (pictured), who was convicted of orchestrating a vehicle bomb plot involving targets in London, New York, Newark, N.J. and Washington, D.C.

Officials say a surveillance camera caught the suspect "staggering from the Mercedes" shortly after parking it outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub.

I bet the Brits wish they had kept this guy in custody. MSNBC got a scopp of it's own with the announcement that police were looking for three men from Birmingham:

British authorities were seeking three men Friday after police defused two car bombs that they said could have killed hundreds of people had a cell-phone trigger not failed.

The three men have been identified and are believed to be from the Birmingham area, a center of radical Islamic unrest in Britain, U.S. officials who had been briefed on the developments told NBC News.

As Allah notesthis ain't the first time radiucals from Birmingham made the news. Oh, and MSNBC confirms the initial thoughts from experts in the field of explosives. This was a fuel-air bomb:

Authorities believe it was intended to be set off by remote control by a cell phone found inside. The cell phone had received at least two calls, which should have detonated several gallons of gasoline, but when the calls came in, the bomb failed to go off, the official said.

Had it done so, that blast then would have ignited six to eight tanks of propane in a mist to make a fuel-air explosion, creating a fireball the size of a small house and propelling 18 to 20 boxes of roofing nails around a large area at bullet speed, counterterrorism officials said.

Clarke told reporters that the second car was similarly laden with gasoline, propane and nails. It was parked illegally nearby, ticketed and towed about 3:30 a.m., he said.

U.S. officials told NBC that the devices resembled the highly explosive car bombs that had been seen in Iraq but not, until now, in the West.

Sick little animals, aren't they? And given the last observation, is it to early too assume some of the recent graduates of Jihadi High might have made their way to Britain quickly to launch this attack. I only raise the question because a lot of bloggers noted that this was an important week in the UK. Gordon Brown was just installed as the new PM there. Patrick Ruffini makes an observation that I'm sure isn't lost on anyone:

I'm sure this has already been remarked upon in the coverage of the London carbomb plot, but there's an eerie parallel between today and the 7/7 attacks. Today was the first week of Gordon Brown's premiership. 7/7 was the first day of the Gleneagles G8 summit. They seem to have a habit of planning to strike when Britain is in the headlines around the world.

The good news, according to the Blotter, is that the mixture was wrong, and might not have detonated in the right fashion. Call it a bullet that was dodged, and no one should think that because the animals were incompetent this time that it'll hold true all the time. Remember, they only need to succeed once while the West must be right 100% of the time.

The Times Online notes that authorities had warned nightclubs two weeks ago to be wary of a possible attack. What's even more sinister about the plot was this little nugget in the Times piece:

One car, a pale green Mercedes, had been left outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub in Haymarket. A second, a blue Mercedes, was left a few hundred yards away in Cockspur Street, a busy thoroughfare close to Trafalgar Square. This vehicle was towed away at 3:30am on Friday to an car pound on Park Lane by unsuspecting parking officials.

Had either device gone off it would have generated a huge fireball and a shockwave spreading over 400 yards in all directions. If, as suspected, one had been primed to detonate before the other, people fleeing the first blast could have been caught by the second.

Like I said, sick little animals. We've seen tactics like this from the Palistinians in Israel where they'll detonate suicide bombers or car bombs once emergency services arrive to inflict maximum damage on the area and populace. Had they gone off, hundreds could have been killed.

We've already seen the Left's reaction to this. They're yawning. Dean Barnett earlier tonight on Hugh Hewitt's show was sent to DailyKos where a nutter there basically said this whole plot was BS. It's nice to to know this guy was a former analyst for the CIA, and isn't currently there. Just to let readers know, I have been in contact with a couple of our intel sources, and they said they'd send us anything they can dig up about this plot, but they believe that the heightened state that the UK is in right now will dissuade any further plots in the immediate future. We'll see.

Publius II

The sad, simple truth lies in a lesson DC isn't likely to forget

This will be our final post regarding the demise of the immigration shamnesty bill, but it's one that's due. See, a lot of people were worked up about this bill. Marcie and I received a helluva lot more e-mail than ever starting about four weeks ago. A few were telling us to drop the immigration posts, and take the bill as it is because it was better than the way things are now. The vast majority of those e-mails were urging us on, sending us links to other blogs and information sources, and of course asking what they could do to help.



Call. Write. Use your God-given voice and your God-given rights to tell the Senate to stick this bill where the sun doesn't shine.



The point of this is simple: AMERICA won the day. A union of the average Joes, think-tanks, talk radio, and blogs took this fight to the Senate. There we located some very important allies in the fight; allies that never wavered in their opposition to a bill conceived in secret away from the public's eyes. While talk radio and the think tanks have their muscle, and have had it for years, the new hotshot on the block made an indeliable mark on the map. Blogs became the driving force behind the debate. Talk radio may be on all day, but the hosts change, and not every talk radio host was on our side. The think tanks work 9-5. We were there 24/7, and matching the White House and Senate move for move. Bill quick at The Daily Pundit had this observation: (emphasis mine)

In the end, the underdogs crushed the Bush Amnesty, and in the process, came of age as a true power player on the national political scene. Of course many contributed: Conservative think tanks generated reports and analysis, and the righty talkers mobilized their millions of listeners. But in the middle was something new: the Blogosphere, which reacted to every Bush attempt with speed and ferocity never seen before in American politics. The bill was subjected to a merciless spotlight within hours of its release, so merciless that it became impossible for Senators to follow their usual procedure and vote for it sight unseen.

The talkers became, essentially, a megaphone for the work done at lightning speed in the blogosphere. Everybody you listened to was saying things like, “I saw on NRO,” or “the Powerline guys are reporting,” or “Michelle Malkin just posted,” or “Mickey Kaus said,” or “you can search the bill yourself at N.Z. Bear’s blog,” as well as passing mention of dozens of other blogs, or analysis obviously generated in the blogosphere. We gave them everything: speed, accuracy, analysis, information resources, encouragement, any and everything the talkers could possibly need or use to mobilize and engage their massive listening audiences. And we did it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from the start of this battle to the finish.

And Bush never wavered. Nobody withdrew anything, nobody made any real concessions. Bush staked his power and reputation on his ability to shut down the power of the blogs and the talkers, and he failed. Not only did he fail, he failed miserably. It was a naked, bare-knuckles slugging match, and we knocked him out cold.

Without the blogosphere, the talkers would have still been clearing their throats when Bush, Reid, McCain, Kennedy, and Graham presented them with a fait accompli.

What Does It Mean?

It means we’re in the big leagues now, and it means that other players must now regard us as equals, and potentially dangerous. We’ve been growing toward this for some time, but now we’ve arrived. We took everything the entrenched powers of Washington could throw at us, and we beat them.

Which means the entrenched powers are no longer going to be looking at us as an interesting toy. They are going to look at us as potential allies and enemies. And if we are enemies, then they will try to destroy us. We made a lot of enemies in this fight. They won’t forget. Neither should we.

This is just one of the reasons why we scoff at the critics that regard bloggers as losers, as people who just like to start trouble. And those sentiments come fromt he media elites in their ivory towers, and it used to come from Washington, DC, too. Not anymore. We have scored too many victories and mounted too many heads on our collective wall to be looked down upon by these people. Amd that goes for every blogger out there -- from the big guns to the small fish. EVERYONE contributed. We didn't need to make an alliance. We didn't need to e-mail and beg each other for support. We saw what was being done, decided we weren't going to sit idly by and let the elites get their way, and we moved as one.

No one is left out of the loop in the thanks that started coming across the airwaves and bandwidths yesterday. I think Michelle Malkin presented the best round of thanks that anyone could give:

Thanks to the stalwart, true leaders in the Senate — especially Sens. Sessions, DeMint, Vitter, Inhofe, Cornyn, and their staffs. Thanks to the House GOP members who made their opposition known. Thanks to the Loud Folks on the right side of the dial. Thanks to the Loud Folks at The Corner, RedState, Human Events, Townhall, Kaus, N.Z. Bear, my colleagues at Hot Air, and all the enforcement-first bloggers out there who weighed in. Thanks to the analysts at the Heritage Foundation, the enforcement/assimilation proponents at The Manhattan Institute, George Borjas, Kris Kobach, Eagle Forum, 9/11 Families, FAIR and Numbers USA. Thanks to the immigration enforcement activists who’ve been at this for years and decades before this one battle began. Most importantly, thanks to all the ordinary “Loud Folks” who called, phoned, e-mailed, and blogged their opposition.

This is what the entrenched elites in DC and the MSM lost to. We were, as Rich Lowry stated today in his piece on TownHall, the "aroused citizenry." United in opposition, and one that crossed party lines, we tackled Goliath, and knocked him out cold. The "Army of Davids" that Glenn Reynolds wrote about, and warned the elites about, just made it's mark on the map.

We're here. We're here to stay. Get used to it. We can either be your best friend, or your worst nightmare. I think the last four to five weeks showed the nightmare side to the elites that clicked their tongues at us when this all started.

Publius II

Arranged Marriages A New Trend?

I spotted this story from FOX News at the top of the Hot Air page. Curious, I zipped on over to find this story regarding the resurgence of the arranged marriage:

The best way to find your partner for life could very well be the oldest: the arranged marriage, according to one trend expert.

“Today is the era of the arranged couple who fall into love around the birth of the first child," said Marian Salzman, co-author of "Next Now: Trends for the Future."

"It sounds traditional, but in some ways so much of the future is back to the past, turbo-charged,” she said.

Arranged marriages have been part of many cultures for thousands of years, primarily born out of the desire and/or need for a financial, political or property-based partnership. As America expanded multi-culturally, this custom filtered through as certain ethnic groups sought to preserve cultural and class traditions.

But, contrary to the "old" arranged marriage, in which children are forbidden from choosing their own partners, the modern arranged marriage is not about being forced into federation. It’s about relying on the matchmaking mastery of Mom and Dad.

“This is about picking a marriage partner — not about falling into bed for a world-class romance," said Salzman, whose trend forecasts are based on pattern recognition and what stylemakers are talking about.

“There is a newfound interest in letting someone else solve the love dilemma,” she explained. “We’re on option overload, and we’re maxed out in terms of time, and we’d all love a partner. So it makes sense to enlist those who know us best to forge a proper and satisfying match.”

I should let readers know, before I go any further, that I spoke to Thomas about this piece. The reason? We did not exactly have today's "A-typical" courtship and marriage. The "courting period," as he called it was short prior to him popping the question. Our marriage was not welcomed by either side of the family, at first, then only grudging acceptance was given. Does that make this marriage doomed? Hardly. While his parents died before we were married, mine are still around. My mother has warmed up to him, and my father is, well, the same.

Arranged marriages, to me, sound seriously outdated. This was something done a long time ago to forge alliances between nations and people; to enhance the financial union between two families; it was even done by some as almost rudimentary eugenics (producing the next generation of smart or attractive people). None of these worked out very well. Inevitably, wars and disunion would occur. Mom and dad helped choose then, and this new trend would have them choosing now.

I do not think this "new trend" is really necessary. We live in a world today where it is a 24/7, go, go, go all the time. Thomas often says that the general populace of the world seems to have the attention span of a nanosecond; we never take time to stop and breathe. Marriage is a very big step in the lives of two individuals. They cease being two, and become one -- united until death and forsaking all others. Marriage is about love, not convenience, and it should not be treated like it used to be. Most arranged marriages did not work out too well, with one spouse being miserable because they were forced to marry someone they did not love.

We are traditionalists. We believe that the day people get married it should be one of the happiest days of their lives. And while the father is still typically asked for his blessing, it should not be the role of parents to locate a suitable spouse. It should be up to the couple as to whether or not they wed. Some may find this approach an interesting one to try, I see only those who truly love one another capable of making it succeed.

There are not hard and fast rules for marriage. It takes time to develop the feelings that couples nurture before taking the big step. For us, that time was short. I knew I loved him, and he knew he loved me. After the proposal, we learned more about each other before finally setting the date. It is not that we did not want to go through with it, but given how much we knew about each other in the beginning, it seemed only fitting to continue to grow with one another. By the time the day came around, we completely knew as much about each other as we possibly could. Since then, we have learned a lot of new things about ourselves. A few of our friends are stymied at how we conduct our marriage. To us, it is an equal partnership with both sides willing to compromise. After all, marriage is give and take. In my humble opinion, arranged marriages seem to give the air that the give and take is already enumerated somewhere, and the choices are not there for the couple.

I think we will stick to doing things the old-fashioned way. They have worked for thousands of years, and will continue to do so.

Marcie

The Aftermath And What It Means

The battle was long and exhausting, but in the end we prevailed. No one can deny that "we, the people" humbled a body, and forced the Senate to bow to our wishes. This should not be looked down upon. It should be celebrated. This is what democracy is all about. It is what an empowered people is capable of. Today, Rich Lowry has a piece up @ TownHall discussing this:

Beware of an aroused citizenry. It's an admonition that should be ingrained in the brain of any run-of-the-mill politician, let alone someone who has ascended to the United States Senate.

But from the Olympian heights of the world's greatest deliberative body, it is often forgotten. So senators got a reminder in the humiliating defeat of a "comprehensive" immigration bill that had the support of the president of the United States, a bipartisan group of senators with the blessing of the leaders of their caucuses, and the support of the editorial boards of the country's most important newspapers.

All of that was enough to get all of 46 votes on a key procedural vote that needed 60 to pass. The fight over the immigration bill was the first instance of an insider parliamentary struggle in which bloggers, talk-radio hosts and citizens were able to have a major voice through the synergistic power of the Internet, radio waves and telephone lines. Bloggers picked apart the bill, talk-radio-show hosts broadcast its flaws, and ordinary people jammed their senators' phone lines -- blocking what had begun as a kind of legislative coup.

The creators of the Senate's so-called Grand Bargain -- giving illegal aliens legal status in exchange for new enforcement measures -- originally hoped to slam it through the Senate in a matter of days. Even as they held a self-congratulatory press conference about the bargain, no one had seen the text of the 300-page bill. Their implicit axiom was, "Trust us."

It quickly became clear that was impossible. The bill's boosters repeatedly were caught mischaracterizing it. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff seemed to suggest that illegals would have to pay back taxes, when the White House had quietly taken that provision out. Bloggers and talk-show hosts publicized this and other problems that otherwise would have gone unnoticed (John McCain learned of the tax provision in a blogger conference call), slowing its momentum.

As the techno-populists dissected the bill, its senatorial supporters mustered their most off-putting imperial pique. Mississippi Republican Trent Lott rued that talk radio was "running the country." Ohio Republican George Voinovich went on the Sean Hannity radio show and complained that he was being "intimidated" because people were calling his office opposing the bill.

President Bush said opponents hadn't read the bill, when diligent bloggers combed through it line by line. They gave the bill the markup -- the detailed process of amendment -- that it never got in committee because there was such a rush to passage. Even the procedural shenanigans that the bill's supporters relied on to try to get it through were subject to the intense glare of publicity. Instead of helping the bill's cause -- as such arcane maneuvers would have in the past -- they hurt it by adding to the sense of chaos and unfairness around the process.

Once, the Senate leadership would have been able to lean on members opposed to the bill to do a dishonest two-step to pass it. First, vote for cloture to end debate over the bill, which requires 60 votes and was the toughest hurdle. Then, vote against it on final passage, which takes only 50 votes -- so there would be more wiggle room for "no" votes. This way, the Senate leadership would have gotten its bill, and senators opposed to it could tell constituents back home that they had voted against it. But bloggers and talk-radio hosts blocked that dodge by sending up a cry, "A vote for cloture is a vote for amnesty."

In the end, support for the bill literally collapsed. Even the imperious Voinovich voted against cloture. Now, there is really no such thing as an "inside game" anymore, since bloggers make sure it gets "outside." Both the right and the left will take advantage of this, for good and ill policy ends. But it's clearly an enhancement of democracy. Senators should get used to it, and buy more phone lines.

Indeed. Thomas and I can take a miniscule pat on the back for doing our part. We called, we wrote, we blogged, and he was on the radio constatnly. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to people like Michelle Malkin, Laure Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, and the people over at NRO's Corner. Those are the people who took the vanguard and: A) Informed the people of the bill's flaws; B) Encouraged no one to sit on the sidelines; C) Took the water carriers on full force. They led the way. We just jumped on board and went for the ride.

In the end all of our caterwauling worked. We broke down support for the bill, and Mr. Lowry is precisely correct. When we saw the drama playing out in it's final hours, we drew a line in the sand. If you vote for cloture, you will vote for amnesty. We gave our senators no wiggle room. Look at Senator Brownback. He thought he could be sly, and quietly change his "yea" vote to a "nay" vote when he saw that cloture would not be reached. Going into Thursday's vote, each senator knew what a yes vote meant.

Just so we are clear here, as I did put the roll call up, there is nothing left for the twelve Republicans who crossed the aisle. Below is that list, and their next relevant Senate election:

Bennett, UT -- 2012
Craig, ID -- 2008
Graham, SC -- 2008
Gregg, NH -- 2010
Hagel, NE -- 2008
Kyl, AZ -- 2010
Lott, MS -- 2012
Lugar, IN -- 2012
Martinez, FL -- 2010
McCain, AZ -- 2012
Snowe, ME -- 2012
Specter, PA -- 2010

For all those digging out the pitchforks and torches to toss these guys out of their jobs remember that you need a solid conservative primary candidate to beat them. Not just anyone will do. If we are to be serious about retaking our party from the moderates willing to bend overbackwards and make backroom deals with our ideological foes, then simply putting up clay pigeons (for lack of a better term) will not do.

People know we live in Arizona. People also know that we do not like John McCain. We believe him to be arrogant, condescending, and vain. He is a good american, but he is a lousy senator and a terrible Republican. On the flip side, John Kyl is a good man and a solid conservative. Hugh Hewitt penned a piece just before his vacation. It was a column defending John Kyl. While neither Thomas or I are too fond of Senator Kyl now, that wound will heal. We feel slighted because both men come from a border state, and they know how porous our border is. This is not rocket science; enforce the laws on the books now, and make the necessary changes incrementally towards reform.

As for the rest, many of them need to go. Lott, Hagel, Graham, Lugar, and Specter are at the top of the list of those needing to be handed their walking papers. These people have played long enough in the Senate where real and serious work needs to be carried out. Play time is over. For us to heal the wounds of division in the party, it falls to us to clean house, and remove some of the dead weight from the party that has been problematic, at best; irresponsible and contentious, at worst.

Marcie

The missteps of the past 48 hours

All day long we've been following the immigration aftermath. We've been looking at the jubilation about killing this thing once and for all, and I just now hit NRO's the Corner. Man, the mistakes couldn't have been worse, and they picked up on just about all of them. First, there's the sad plight of Senator Brownback. For those unaware, when the vote started this morning, Sam Brownback, presidential candidate, voted yes for cloture. As you scroll through the order, you'll see he changes his vote well after the forty vote count against. He switched when he saw that cloture was going to fail. Where are all of the "flip-flop" yappers now? And no, we don't buy the campaign's line that this was some sort of strategy on his part. He was the second guy to vote Yes.

Second on my list of mistakes, and the biggest booby prize award winner is Harry Reid. As Rich Lowry explains, Harry was just plain stupid last night:

A key moment was last night when the Baucus amendment on REAL ID wasn't tabled. The Bargainers had been running through the clay pigeon, tabling amendments to get them out of the way so they could get to the Graham-Kyl-Martinez "apprehend and deport" amendment. Then, the plan was, that amendment wouldn't be tabled, signaling that it would pass and giving some cat-nip to on-the-fence Republicans to vote for cloture. But Baucus wasn't tabled, stopping the process before it got to Lindsey "Deportation" Graham's creation. That helped blow away a big piece of the political strategy of the Bargainers.

A few shrewd conservatives had seen the potential here and voted against tabling Baucus—even though they didn't support the amendment—because they knew it would throw a monkey wrench in the process. When Baucus wasn't tabled because of those surprise conservative votes, a desperate Reid moved to vote on it right away to try to get it out of the way. But he couldn't because he couldn't get unanimous consent from opponents of the bill. Procedurally, he had been check-mated; politically, the cover of the Graham-Kyl-Martinez amendment wouldn't be available; and it was downhill from there.

Reid was nailed. He couldn't do anything. He needed unanimous consent -- all 100 senators -- to proceed, and he knew he wasn't getting those votes. But K-Lo isn't to be outshined. For her wisdom is the most penetrating of them all:

"The real victory today for conservatives is that now all the presidential candidates on our side are free to run against Bush — they've just robbed the Dems' of their most potent weapon."

Absolutely. The president is now very irrelevant. He was soundly defeated by the same people who voted for him. This fight was waged in the Senate, but we started the war, and we cvarried the day in the end. It was the American people that stood up and yelled "fix it, or we'll kill it." Kill it we did, and while it wasn't all done at our hands, it was done as a collective effort; from the most unknown citizen to the most wel--known senator. We collectively killed this bill. And now the Dems are left with no platform. Sure, they'll still take swipes at the president, but with the loss of this bill GOP nominees are free to slap around the president, too. The Dems can't use the "you won't criticize the president" argument any more. Rudy Giuliani issued a statement on the vote today, and I'm sure Fred and Mitt will be following up sometime today (as yet, there's not statement issued). But this is one issue that is off the table.

Publius II

NY Times shills for the shills.

When the Fairness Doctrine talk started, you just knew the Times wouldn't stay silent. But what these poor saps did today was just make things worse for the senators that already have a target on their backs. But hey, even the Times can be helpful even when they're trying to go after ideological foes. The piece is talking about the visceral response these senators were receiving from their constituents, but before you know it, they're taking swipes at talk radio:

The threat came in the weekend mail.

The recipient was Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, who has been a leading advocate of the proposed legislation for changing the immigration system. His offices in Washington and across Florida have received thousands of angry messages in recent weeks, but nothing as alarming as that letter he received at his home.

“I’ll turn it over to Capitol police, and we’ll go from there,” said Mr. Martinez, who declined to elaborate on the nature of the threat.

On the eve of a crucial vote on the immigration bill, the Capitol Hill switchboard was deluged again Wednesday as thousands of citizens called their members of Congress — and, perhaps, someone else’s — to weigh in. Not since the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, several Senate aides said, have the lines been so jammed by a single issue.

Republicans who support the immigration bill are facing unusually intense opposition from conservative groups fighting it. This is among the first times, several of them said, that they have felt the full brunt of an advocacy machine built around conservative talk radio and cable television programs that have long buttressed Republican efforts to defeat Democrats and their policies.

See, it's all talk radio's fault that this started. And I'm sure the Times, like Trent Lott, think that talk radio needs to be dealt with. That's what this piece turns into. Blame the pundits for informing the nation of a bad, bad bill. They started it, right? Wrong. They helped educate an unsuspecting populace because these bastards wanted to do this all in secret. Why? Because they knew if we knew what was in it, this is what our reaction would be.

While the majority of the telephone calls and faxes, letters and e-mail messages have been civil, aides to several senators said, the correspondence has taken a menacing tone in several cases.
Senator Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican who is undecided on the final immigration bill, said his office received a telephone call recently that “made a threat about knowing where I lived.” Mr. Burr passed it along to the authorities. “There were enough specifics to raise some alarm bells,” he said.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is one of the architects of the immigration overhaul, said he also had received threats in telephone calls and letters to his office. Mr. Graham said several other senators had told him privately that they also received similar messages.

“There’s racism in this debate,” Mr. Graham said. “Nobody likes to talk about it, but a very small percentage of people involved in this debate really have racial and bigoted remarks. The tone that we create around these debates, whether it be rhetoric in a union hall or rhetoric on talk radio, it can take people who are on the fence and push them over emotionally.”

Yes, senator, there is racism in this debate, but it's from a tiny minority of idiots. Those weren't the most vocal opponents of this bill. He might want to peruse Michelle Malkin's site, or Hugh Hewitt's site, or Captain Ed Morrissey's site, or NRO's Corner. There's three vocal opponents, and nothing they said had anything to do with racism. As a matter of fact they all went out of their way to avoid that sort of talk, and admonished those that were perpetuating a racist-like debate. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of those across the nation that were opposed to this bill were against it for one simple reason: Amnesty wasn't the answer to the problem, and we couldn't trust DC to be serious about security and enforcement.

The immigration legislation, a priority of President Bush’s, has divided the Republican Party. For the past month, no other issue has been debated as passionately among conservatives as this bill, which calls for the most sweeping changes to immigration law in two decades.

I guess the times forgot about McCain/Feingold, Harriet Miers, and the Dubai Ports deal that the conservative base passionately and vehemntly debated. And the Times is incorrect -- there would have been no real changes to our immigration laws. It would have been a blanket amnesty, not only in terms of legaliuzed status but also in back taxes owed, and the public wasn't going to stand for it. In addition, the entire bill was concocted in secret, minus the normal committee meetings, and they were vilifying the experts raising question after question over the bill's varied flaws.

At the heart of the opposition rests conservative hosts on talk radio and cable television, which often are a muscular if untamed piece of the Republican message machine.

Muscular? Untamed? Untamed means that nothing holds hosts in cgheck, and that's simply not true. Take it from someone who works in the business. There are plenty of "safeguards" that talk show hosts have to abide by. The muscle comes from the listeners that hear what's said, and then beging to do what most common sense individuals do. They started researching to make sure the talk show host is correct. I dare any senator to call out hugh Hewitt, and say he didn't know what he was writing about when he broke down the bill, it's provisions, and the God-awful mistakes in it. Anyone who does decide to take that challenge had better bring their own squeegee and bucket. He's going to mop the floors with them.

Several senators said Wednesday that they did not care to be identified speaking critically of the broadcasters, fearing the same conservative backlash that befell Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, this month when he declared: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

Organizations that have mobilized tens of thousands of people to speak against the immigration legislation said they did not advocate threats. A leading group, Grassfire .org, said that its members had made 250,000 contacts this week with offices of United States senators.

Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, said he had never seen an issue stir such a public response. “In my 29 years, I’ve experienced all the events in that period of time,” he said, “but this is clearly the high-water mark.”

Since Mr. Warner arrived in the Senate, technology advances have made it easier to deliver more messages to members of Congress. Many e-mail messages sent to the Senate are copied to multiple offices, including one that was forwarded to the authorities this week. Referring to supporters of the bill, it closed with the line: “They need to be taken out by ANY MEANS.”

I sincerely doubt that this particular e-mail advocated violence. If anything, it bears a warning to the shamnesty supporters that 2008, 2010, and 2012 could be election years where long knives are drawn to clean out the parties. The electorate didn't appreciate being handed such an underhanded piece of legislation, and they sure as Hell didn't take kindly to the visceral reaction from the Senate. You don't attack your constituents. We get a little ticked when that happens.

Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, a spokeswoman for the United States Capitol Police, said it was the department’s policy not to discuss potential threats against lawmakers.

As Mr. Graham walked back to his office on Wednesday, he said he doubted that senators would be deterred by any threats. “I’m sure a lot of the people who have taken a high-profile position on this have been threatened, but what are you going to do?” he said. “You saw what happened to Senator Daschle.”

Yep, sure did, and it was richly deserved. The same fate, we hope, will befall Trent Lott on 2012, and that Lindsey Graham will be bounced from office in 2008. That's what we're talking about. We want these guys out of office because they're not helping the nation. they're helping themselves and ignoring our concerns. Daschle did that, and his obstruction sealed the deal. The comments made by both Lott and Graham sealed the deal for them this time. And if Trent Lott thinks that memories will be short, think again.

Mr. Graham was referring to Tom Daschle, the former Democratic majority leader from South Dakota, whose office received a mailing of anthrax in 2001. The case remains unsolved.

“One of the requirements of public service in modern America is dealing with a few voices that are full of hate,” Mr. Graham said. “And our discourse and the way we politic, the way we engage each other, brings that out.”

No one's saying that @$$holes aren't going to be involved in any debate. But to basically make it sound like we're the ones doing it -- that the majority of people ticked at this bill -- are full of racist hatred. The majority were upset because the bill was bad and the Senate wasn't listening. We were the ones being attacked for having complaints about a terrible piece of legislation. While talk radio may have been the catalyst to the public standing up to the Senate, but we're the ones who stood up. We're the ones that were upset and voicing ourselves to them.

If some people are offended that we spoke up, tough. That's our job as Americans. Thomas Jefferson once stated that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." That wasn't just said in defense of the nation. It was meant to be in defense of our rights, as well because Jefferson knew that a government could become despotic. The people are the ultimate check against the government. And I think it's time we start exercising that check to remove the dead, bloated weight from both parties.

Publius II

Immigration Bill goes Down In Flames

This was a nail biter but in the end saneness and sensibility prevailed, and this bill is now officially deader than a doornail:

The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.

A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.
The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States.

It was a victory for Republican conservatives who strongly criticized the bill's provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails.

So there is the news, and I am frankly surprised that it does not mention some of the highlights from this morning's debate. Most of the senators this morning we veritable geniuses. They continued to repeat that the system is broken, the status quo is no longer acceptable, and that we are a nation of immigrants. All true, but this bill would not fix the system and we knew it.

I would say the most galling thing to have heard this morning was when Arlen Specter stated that those who call and e-mail senators do not represent America. Talk about out of touch. We more than represent America. America spoke up, loud and proud, and we refused to be backed down by a bunch of pro-shamnesty bullies. That is what the bill's supporters did to the public, and we responded by increasing the scope and volume of or assault on the Senate. If this is a problem for Mr. Specter, I would suggest retirement. We play the game to win.

Harry Reid was having a field day with regard to demanding they be allowed an open and fair debate. This coming from a man who helped concoct this bill in secret, has rushed proceedings to push this through his body, and today limited debate to just ten minutes per person. So much for being fair. Of course there was the moment where he announced he received "hate mail" from his hometown, and he was upset about it. Excuse me but as an elected representative that is part of the job. People are not always going to agree with you. On this issue well over 80% of the country did not agree with him, or Kennedy, or McCain, or Graham. (Speaking of Kennedy Allah @ Hot Air,/li> has a smoking good video of Ted Kennedy making an @$$ of himself with the Gestapo comments fromt his morning.)

Here is the roll call: (Take special note of the GOP in the "yeas" column. These are the usual suspects -- minus John Kyl -- that keep mucking it up for the rest of us, and these people need to be handed their walking papers over the course of the next three elections. As for the "nays" you might want to give those Democrats a call tomorrow and thank them for being the sensible adults in their party.)

YEAS:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYS:

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

In closing, I would like to say this to President Bush: You tried to push this on the nation. You tried to undercut the normal way congress does business. When you failed the first time, you did not go back to the drawing board; you resorted to DC politics, and offered the Senate a bribe. Yesterday, the dirty little secret was exposed on that piece of the bill. Mr. President, if you thought you were a lame duck before today, after today it will become all the more apparent. This nation knows what you were willing to do to help your friends south of the border.

This nation knows who they can and cannot trust in Washington right now, and it is clearly not the executive branch, and a fair number of those in Congress. The people saw this abhorrant, disgusting display, and they will not forget this. In the next few years, hopefully those involved in this deal will be out of a job.

Marcie

Harry Reid fixes the bill ...

... or so he thought. Can I ask an honest question here? Hary Reid has an approval rating of 19% right now. This morning, he introduced his "clay pigeon" amendment to the Senate.

What do you get when you cross Harry Reid with a "clay pigeon?"

A bad punchline to an already horrendous joke. Harry's the joke, and this bill is the punchline. Only we Americans have become the punching bag.

Why do I say that? If anyone was watching C-Span 2 this morning when this thing was introduced, we watched Harry Reid play his best Keystone Kops role when the GOP started raising the roof over the mistakes and omissions in this bill. It was supposed to contain all the amendments under consideration by the Senate that were to be included in the new 418 page monstrosity known as comprehensive immigration reform.The most glaring omission from the "clay pigeon" was Jeff Sessions' EITC amendment, and once the word went up from the Senate that something was wrong, the body itself was left to debate a bill that none of them had read, that none of them knew much about, which became nothing more than a blather session in it's worst form.

Of course, this is the Senate under Harry Reid's inept and incompetent leadership, so are we to expect anything less?

Folks, do we finally understand what's going on here? I do hope so. Once Harry saw the problems, he sent his staff back into Dick Cheney's vacant bunker to begin redrafting this pigeon in the hope that it would see the light of day tomorrow. (Yes, tomorrow, which means we get another day of useless, inane blathering from both sides of the aisle on C-Span 2.) I'll tell our readers this much though, and that is this "clay pigeon" is worth about as much as a cow-pie. Captain Ed Morrissey was busy divesting the "clay pigeon" last night/li> like much of the center-right 'Sphere was, and he brings up the same points we have written down right next to us.

This pigeon is a dead duck. It corrects nothing, and omits everything that the public has been yelling about now for five weeks. Enforcement isn't in it. An increase in Z-A Visa applicants is in it (now 1.5 million after the initial 400,000 was reduced by half). The DREAM act is in there, and the Agricultural workers (guest workers) still have the 24 hour waiting period, but get their papers if nothing pops up in that timeframe. (I'd like to remind readers that Mahmoud Abouhalima, the ringleader of the cell that executed the '93 WTC attack, sought and obtained a fraudulant ag-worker amnesty under the 1986 provisions.

This "clay pigeon" is as much a sham as the original bill. Nothing is fixed under these provisions. If anything, the bureaucracy will only get worse. For a comprehensive round-up of today's "clay pigeon" antics, head here. They have their own blog in honor of this fiasco. As if this comedy routine today wasn't enough, K-Lo over at NRO's The Corner has a dirty, little secret regarding the $4.4 billion in security and enforcement bribes, as observed by Senator DeMint:

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) released Wednesday a report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) which says the new Senate immigration bill contains a major loophole in border security. Supporters of the bill say it provides $4.4 billion in immediate mandatory spending for border enforcement, but according to the CRS analysis, the funds could also be used immediately to implement the amnesty provisions bill.

“This is just another example of how this bill claims to do one thing but does something else entirely. It’s another example of an empty promise being used to buy votes for amnesty,” said Senator DeMint. “The supporters of this bill have been running around trying to convince people that this money will be used to secure the border first, but now we know that’s not the case. If you read the fine print, the bill says this money can also be used for amnesty.”

Ouch. That's bound to hurt a good deal of support int he Senate, in the House, and across the nation. We said it before, and I'll say it again for emphasis:

The government didn't fulfill their obligations in '86, and have done nothing since then to make people believe they were serious about border security and enforcement, so why the Hell do they think we'll buy this line now?

Publius II

Shamnesty Supporters Prevail; Public Outraged; An Army Of Davids Called For

Thomas is fond on this saying, and today it seems most appropo: You reap what you sow. The Republicans and Democrats have decided to ignore the general populace, and move forward on this sham of an immigration reform package. I believe I speak for a fair amount of people across the country -- Republican and Democrat -- and I know I speak for Thomas when I say that the time for forgiveness is over. We cannot forgive what will not be entertained, and that is our opinion. We put these snakes in office, and they decided we were irrelevant. They knew better. So be it, but do not come crying to us, or try to villify us when we eject you from office. As was the lesson in 2006, so will it be in 2008, in 2010, in 2012, and beyond.

We will no longer suffer fools who demean and berate us like children. Young or old; Democrat or Republican; it matters not. We will not be ignored especially when we possess the high ground. In this case our high ground was knowing what is in this bill, and knowing that it will be a catastrophe for this nation. Some believe this is a solution. Sure it is, if you are a blind person stumbling around int he dark, and you suddenyl discover a flashlight. It, too, is a solution to your problem, except you still cannot see the beam of light.

Here is the roll call:

YEAS: (Please take note of the Republicans listed below.)

Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYS:

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

Reid also introduced his clay-pigeon. It is 373 pages long and Michelle Malkin is calling for an "army of skeet shooters" to disseminate it quickly. Her wish is our command. We have a lot of work to do as the next few hours go. I am beginning on it as soon as I finish this post.

The public is outraged, and rightly so. These fools in the Senate decided to play the game, and now they will get burned. the elctorate on both sides of the aisle are not likely to forgive or forget this misdeed, and that is because we understand the gravity of this bill. We know what it will do to the nation. The Senate refuses to believe that. The president refuses to believe that. As I said, so be it. Like in darkness. This nation refuses to, and we are just getting started.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. Time for us to pick it back up. In closing, I would like to cite a post from Stanley Kurtz @ NRO's Corner:

Something about this immigration battle doesn’t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there’s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That’s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and that’s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.

Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it’s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it’s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we’re at each others’ throats, there’s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.

I’m still stuck on the way this bill was going to be pushed through without a public airing of crucial provisions, in the two or three days before Memorial Day recess. But I should be stuck even further back–on the way this bill was cooked up in a backroom deal that bypassed the ordinary process of public hearings. We take them for granted, but those civics textbook fundamentals are there for a reason. We’re going to pay a steep price for setting the fundamentals aside.

Senators who believe that by passing this bill they will at least be getting a divisive issue out of the way are making a serious mistake. This is not 1986. The immigration issue is far more prominent now, and it will only grow in importance. Demographics, and the problems of assimilation in a globalized world of satellite dishes and easy travel will see to that. Look at how votes on the war have come back to haunt Democratic politicians. Votes by legislators of both parties on this bill will be haunting them–and all of us–for years to come.

Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal America’s divisions. I fear it’s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, it’s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.

You can’t solve an argument by imposing a "compromise" on parties who don’t actually view it as a compromise. You can’t heal social divisions by forcing your version of a "solution" down the public’s throats. Real healing comes only when two sides reach what they themselves consider a valid compromise, or when one side wins the argument by persuading a clear majority of the validity of its case. Democracy does work, but first the Senate has got to give it a try.

Indeed.

Marcie

Comin' after Fred!

Here's a nother thing we knew was inevitable. We knew the Democrats would draw out the knives on Fred Thompson, and it speaks volumes as the man hasn't even officially entered the race yet. But today, they launched the first salvo. From The Politico:

Even before his expected July announcement, Fred Thompson's all-but-declared entry into the Republican presidential stakes has prompted the Democratic National Committee to attack him as a potential GOP front-runner and to use his prospective candidacy to raise money.

Democratic strategists say Thompson's populist style and show-biz allure could prove extremely appealing in a general election at a time when voters are so down on Washington. So the party has launched a preemptive campaign against him that includes a DNC fundraising e-mail branding Thompson, "The inside-outsider."

"Remember the Republican culture of corruption?" the letter asks. "The revolving door of Republican politicians moving in and out of top political offices and Washington, D.C., lobbying firms? That's Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. For years, acting wasn't the 'Law & Order' star's profession -- it was a hobby. In the real world, Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career as a Washington lobbyist. And just this month, as part of his role as the ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby's legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his support of Libby, saying that he would 'absolutely' pardon him. As he runs for president, he'll try his hardest to hide the truth from the American people. And we need to stop him. Support our efforts to get the truth out about Fred Thompson."

You know you've hit a nerve when the man's not even officially running yet, and they're drawing out long knives for the man. As Captain Ed astutely notes Fred Thompson has done far more than most Democrats who make a career of Congress. In fact, he compiles the following list from Thomas.gov's database:

* S.3040 - Privacy Commission Act
* S.3030 - Amending Title 31 to provide for audits in executive agencies
* S.2805 - Federal Property Asset Management Reform Act of 2000
* S.2752 - Accountability to Congress for Nuclear Transfers to North Korea Act of 2000
* S.2645 - China Nonproliferation Act
* S.2306 - Government for the 21st Century Act
* S.1993 - Government Information Security Act of 1999
* S.1991 - Amending the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to enhance criminal penalties for election law violations
* S.1503 - Office of Government Ethics Authorization Act of 1999

That was all during the 106th Congress, and the man was either the main sponsor or a significant co-sponsor of all of those pieces of legislation. Can Obama, Edwards, or Hillary claim similar achievements? Not even close.

And this brings me to an e-mail we received recently about our our column about fred Thompson that we wrote last month. The e-mailer (name withheld for professional reasons) was a typical Ron Paul nutter that threw out every little talking point and straw man to dismantle the piece we put together. Granted, the e-mailer's arguments don't bear any weight against what we wrote. Ours was a concise piece that dealt with Fred's record regarding his federalist stance on issues. It revolved around the sort of man he is, and the sort of leader he could be. All the criticism in the e-mail focused literally around emotion, and that was directed towards their support of Ron Paul.

Fred Thompson is someone that scares the Democrats, and the nutter Republicans that think he could be worse that President Bush. No offense intended, and people know that we support President Bush, but to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges. The president has shown his colors lately, and that is of a coward; content with the lame duck status a weak Democratic-controlled Congress has painted of the man. the brash and bold president we saw in the aftermath of the attacks on 11 September is long gone. It's been replaced by a man seeking a legacy, and seeking a concensus among a party that literally hates his guts. How do I know this? I see it nightly, folks, when I decide to venture into the political chats. I see the fever swamp in action, and obviously so has the president.

Fred's not the sort of guy to cave into such things. Unlike Hillary's "Im in it to win it" talking point, Fred means it. He's not settling for second tier status. He wants the presidency, and he's running to win it. The desperation of the Left to paint him as something other than who he is is utterly futile and completely transparent. They fear him, and now we know it. Let the fear prevail in them. In the ned they'll also see that he's not the boogeyman or Washington insider they paint him to be. He's the same man that served this nation in the Senate respectably and professionally.

That's a far cry from where their party sits today. No wonder they're so damned determined to paint him as something else to cover their craven and inept hopefuls.

Publius II

Didn't we warn people about this months ago?

I distinctly remember both Marcie and I warnbing people that the calls for an Iraq pullout were just the beginning. We warned you people that the Democrats would eventually declare Afghanistan lost, and it was time to pull out.

Dammit! We hate being right 99% of the time:

When they won control of Congress in November, Democrats pressed their case to withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan, but some are growing impatient with U.S. operations in Afghanistan as well.

A few congressional Democrats go so far as suggesting that the Pentagon should pull out of Afghanistan now, while others say that troop withdrawal will be addressed after the military is out of Iraq.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a senior defense authorizer, wants the U.S. out of Afghanistan immediately, calling operations there “futile” in trying to effect political change in a country with a tangled history.

Most other Democrats want to focus on Afghanistan, with the goal of withdrawing the military down the road after the country is stabilized and any new Taliban resurgence quashed.

With a few exceptions, congressional Democrats no longer show any hesitation about withdrawing the military from Iraq. But they are more circumspect about Afghanistan, saying that the Bush administration let the situation worsen by shifting attention onto a protracted conflict in Iraq.

“We should have never gone to Iraq, because we would have been out of Afghanistan [by now],” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) said in a brief interview. ...

... “We are finished there, militarily speaking,” said Abercrombie, the chairman of the Air and Land Armed Services subcommittee.

“There is no useful purpose for our troops there,” Abercrombie stated in a recent interview. “The military should withdraw now,” he said, though he stressed that the U.S. could keep “isolated pockets” of special operators.

We knew it wouldn't be long before Democrats got tired of Afghanistan, too. It was only a matter of time because that party has no stomach for prolonged conflicts. and now we know that all their caterwauling regarding a departure from Iraq to focus on Afghanistan was nothing more than lip service. Yep, you got to hand it to the cut-and-run crowd. If they can find a reason for retreat, they'll throw it out there on the wall and see if it sticks. Let's cross our fingers that the people of America aren't as stupid as the Democrats are.

Publius II